The left (and most of the Democrat Party) has been trying to disarm America for the past 45 years. This most recent, disgusting coffin dance they are performing in regards to the Sandy Hook killings is the current battlefront. They have been waiting for a tragedy like this for a long time, and they are milking it for all it's worth. They don't care if what they take from us has any relevance or not. They want us disarmed so they can do whatever they wish. I just hope that EVERY American gun owner, or ANY American for that matter who believes in the Constitution wakes the hell up...and soon.

Don't think they would do that here? Got news for you...they already have.....

JPH...I'd trust you with any weapon grenade bazooka etc you wanted. I however wouldn't trust Al Capone with a single shot pistol, shotgun, or rifle. Some could argue one gun is enough others 100. I stand by it's the person not the weapon. However I do see your argument in if you own 100 smg's the chance of someone taking it from you to do harm increases. It is a slippery slope to find the Al Capones and limiting them vs limiting the JPH's of the world.

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2014.

"When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.

When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent . When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.

Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at "

There are some excellent points being made here and I appreciate the conversation. Be that as it may, no one has addressed the question that brought me into this thread.

What is the necessary level of armament needed for an individual to maintain a reasonable ability to defend oneself and sereve as member of the militia in modern America and what level of armament represents a danger?

The lawful American gun owner should have access to the exact same type of weapons that every Federal, state, and local law enforcement agency has. If they can possess fully automatic weapons, we should be able to respond in kind. If the military is operating domestically during peacetime, then we should be allowed the same weaponry that they are provided with. Tanks, mortars, aircraft, and ships aren't used domestically, and the military isn't supposed to be used against the civilian population; so conversely we don't need heavy armaments. If; however, the day comes that Obama (or any other despot in the White House) decides to deploy the military against the civilian population, we then have the right to appropriate any similar armaments as may become available in order to defend ourselves against an oppressive government force.

I actually do not envision our military following any orders to attack or fire on American civilians, I do see Obama declaring martial law and enlisting UN ground forces in military operations against the American people. If that scenario comes to pass, then I would hope that we could raid existing military store houses and procure any and all armaments necessary to repel an enemy invasion! I would also hope that our pilots and trained military experts would join forces with the citizens in the ensuing battles for our country.

"The lawful American gun owner should have access to the exact same type of weapons that every Federal, state, and local law enforcement agency has. If they can possess fully automatic weapons, we should be able to respond in kind. If the military is operating domestically during peacetime, then we should be allowed the same weaponry that they are provided with. Tanks, mortars, aircraft, and ships aren't used domestically, and the military isn't supposed to be used against the civilian population; so conversely we don't need heavy armaments. If; however, the day comes that Obama (or any other despot in the White House) decides to deploy the military against the civilian population, we then have the right to appropriate any similar armaments as may become available in order to defend ourselves against an oppressive government force."

X-2!

I will further this and say whatever the politicians and the leftist talking heads tell me I shouldn't or can't have is what is "necessary". If they don't think we should have it then there's a reason, and it has NOTHING to do with "public safety". Their existing "gun and drug free" zones that have turned many of our formerly grand American cities into crime ridden no man's lands where children and other non-combatants get mowed down daily is proof positive of that.

Or put another way, whatever weapons that they THEMSELVES and their loved one's get at OUR expense is what I want and need also. My family is just as important as their's are. The difference is that I'm not asking for it FOR FREE. I just want to be left alone to take care of me and mine the best way I see fit like I've been doing for the past 37 years!

JPH wrote:There are some excellent points being made here and I appreciate the conversation. Be that as it may, no one has addressed the question that brought me into this thread.

What is the necessary level of armament needed for an individual to maintain a reasonable ability to defend oneself and sereve as member of the militia in modern America and what level of armament represents a danger?

Excuse me? Your question(s) are the only thing I have addressed. And I stand by my answer. "The necessary level of armament needed is whatever it takes to stop the threat".

Now if you can tell me what the threat is, and what it will take to stop it, we'll have a more specific answer. If the threat is a lone intruder in the middle of the night, and one well placed shot stops him in his tracks, is that to say that the same level of armament is going to be needed if the threat is three intruders all armed with at least 2 firearms with 15 plus round magazines? Or what if the threat is two high school kids that walk into a building with multiple handguns, a couple shotguns and a duffel bag of magazines (all ten round magazines of course)?

In the previous conversation you stated “I’m worried about some of the company we keep, as gun lovers” in the context that some use the extremist argument that we should be able to have RPG's and tanks and that you feel these people hurt the pro gun argument.

Then when I answer that “No gun represents a danger on its own” in regards to the second part of your question, you respond to me saying “The potential threats are limitless if you have an active imagination. Aircraft could pose a threat. So should we all be able to go out and buy shoulder fired surface to air missiles?”

You can’t condemn this line of thinking on one hand and then use it as your argument.

You previously stated “There is no room for free thinking on the pro gun side”. It’s an argument of “control” vs. “rights”. Which one of those terms do you feel is indicative of “free thinking”?

I’ll try to demonstrate a few of the flaws in the anti modern sporting rifle/high capacity magazine argument that the gun control proponents are supporting with a couple of videos.

The first one was in response to an anti gun legislator that claimed he didn't need an AR15 to hunt duck. The premise being that an AR15 with high capacity magazines is more dangerous than a commonly used shotgun.

The second clip demonstrated the difference between an “assault rifle” and the modern sporting arms that are currently being discussed, and a demonstration in the effectiveness of a 10 round magazine limit.